The Sierra Club is a national, grassroots environmental organization. We are the country's oldest environmental organization, with more than a half-million members who belong to more than 65 chapters and 450 groups.
Our Board of Directors biannually polls our membership to determine what issues are of greatest concern to our grassroots activists across the country. What we discovered was that while every place in America is unique, the problem of sprawl is ubiquitous. Sprawl and overdevelopment are threatening Connecticut's Traprock Ridges and California's San Mateo Creek in Orange County; New Jersey's Highlands, Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay and Puget Sound salmon in Washington State. Our activists chose sprawl as one of the worst threats facing their communities, and the Sierra Club adopted the Challenge to Sprawl campaign as one of our top priorities at the local, state and national level. But this work is not new; our members have been collaborating with local communities for more sensible development in a locally driven, publicly supported, grassroots campaign to stop sprawl. The goal of our program is to help communities pursue development that doesn't come at the expense of our clean air, clean water, open space, wildlife habitat, and public health and safety.
The public is clearly concerned about urban sprawl and its consequences to the quality of their environment and their daily lives. A key component of the Sierra Club's campaign to fight sprawl has been oriented toward supporting local efforts. These efforts have focused on educating the public about steps that they can take to combat this menace and organizing the various stakeholders to create a clear public demand for actions to curb sprawl, protect open space and promote smart growth. Some examples of these local campaigns follow.
In Utah, we're fighting urban sprawl, air pollution, and wetlands destruction by organizing and energizing local opposition to the proposed Legacy Highway, focusing and amplifying demand by the citizens of Salt Lake City, hunters and anglers, and family farmers for stronger measures to halt urban sprawl. Through the media, organizing community events, and hiring experts to expose the local metropolitan planning office's faulty modeling, elected officials were convinced to develop anti-sprawl open space preservation plans. More recently, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has come out in opposition to the Legacy Highway, a move we applaud.
In Georgia, we are working with homeowners, conservationists, and others to rein in uncontrolled growth and highway construction by pushing for environment-friendly transit alternatives. We helped to generate support for shifting priorities for new transportation projects in the Atlanta Region from road construction to alternatives such as commuter rail transit and pedestrian facilities. Sprawl has emerged as a local priority issue -- the Governor is discussing smart growth, and homeowners associations are working to improve local environmental law enforcement, including tree protection and sedimentation control.
In Arizona, we are working to preserve the Sonoran desert and other remaining natural areas by helping our neighbors fight suburban sprawl and reckless development. We successfully combined our organizing outreach with our outings program by taking members of the media to the top 10 endangered natural areas in and around Phoenix. In addition, we developed a comprehensive Arizona sprawl report, which documents the problems associated with urban sprawl and advances policy recommendations.
In Washington, D.C. and Virginia, we are fighting sprawl by promoting public transit and smart growth that saves taxes, prevents pollution, and protects open space -- with the particular goals of securing long-term protection for Chapman Forest and stimulating opposition to the 12-lane Inter-County Connector. In Washington, D.C., promoting urban reinvestment and fighting suburban sprawl has become a prominent part of the agenda. In central Virginia, our "Tale of Two Counties" slide show has stimulated serious study by several counties on how to preserve open space and farmland. We continue to work closely with the Mattaponi American Indian Tribe in Virginia to defeat the King William Reservoir that would promote sprawl development.
The Sierra Club employs a variety of techniques designed to educate communities on the impacts of sprawl. "Sprawl Costs Us All" reports have been published in Maryland, Virginia and Wisconsin to highlight the local economic consequences of sprawl. Elected officials, the media and volunteers have taken "Tours de Sprawl," which illustrate the best and worst types of development. "Tours de Sprawl" have been conducted in Arizona; Washington D.C.; Madison, Wis.; Richmond, Va.; and Chicago.
Although these have been very successful efforts, local efforts alone are not enough. The problems of sprawl can only be solved by a concerted and continuing effort at the local, state and federal levels.
The causes, costs and consequences of sprawl go far beyond the issues that the environmental community has traditionally faced. But in order to deal with sprawl, we need to understand how inter-related problems like traffic gridlock, urban livability and global climate change ultimately are. It was, after all, our founder John Muir who said that "when we try to pick out anything in the universe, we find it hooked to everything else." So just as sprawl has presented us with broad, far-reaching problems, we will need to bring to bear long-term, innovative and cost-cutting solutions. Traffic congestion is one consequence of sprawl. Sprawl gives people no choice but to drive further to get from home to work. In Washington, DC, the time commuters spent stuck in traffic climbed 69% between 1982 and 1994 -- and you can bet they didn't make up for that increased time by working fewer hours. Longer commutes lead to parents who are more tired and have less time available to spend with their children. In Atlanta, where motorists now lead the nation in miles driven per person per day, air pollution is so bad the area has lost federal highway funds for failing to meet clean-air standards.
Worsening water pollution is another consequence of sprawl. One of the most damaging aspects of sprawl is run-off from pavement. As America's green space gets bulldozed by developers, polluted run-off adds sediment and chemicals into our waterways, degrading our drinking water and spoiling recreational opportunities like fishing and swimming. In Seattle, development around Puget Sound is being blamed for the polluted water and habitat destruction that has resulted in the proposed Endangered Species listing of chinook salmon. Our wetlands -- nature's water filters and flood-stopping sponges -- are vulnerable, too. Each year in the U.S., we allow more than 100,000 acres of wetlands to be destroyed. Some of those wetlands are the last wild places in our communities, and some serve as nurseries for abundant, multi-billion dollar fisheries, but they are going fast. Wetland destruction has been shown to increase flooding in Illinois and other states.
Sprawl threatens our rural legacy, too. And the rate of development is accelerating. The American Farmland Trust reports that we are losing 1 million acres of farmland per year to sprawl. There are economic, as well as environmental consequences to sprawl. Planners in Minneapolis-St. Paul estimate it will cost $3.1 billion for just the new water and sewage services that will be needed to accommodate projected growth between now and 2020. And crowded schools are a legacy for many families in suburbs today. Sprawling suburbs burden local communities by demanding higher taxes for new water and sewer lines, extra schools and buses, expanded police and fire protection. Who pays for the big sewer line out to the middle of nowhere? Residents in the existing parts of town and us taxpayers, that's who. Sprawl costs our cities and counties millions of dollars, and those costs are not offset by the taxes paid by the new users. Instead, sprawl forces higher taxes on existing residents, some of them cash-strapped seniors or other low-income taxpayers. Urban areas and older, declining suburbs don't escape the harmful effects of sprawl. As families flee to the countryside, a city's tax base disappears, forcing mayors to raise taxes on remaining taxpayers to pay for city services. And the so-called "brownfields" don't get cleaned up, because businesses are given incentives to re-locate to outer "greenbelts." Sprawl destroys downtown commerce by pulling shoppers from once-thriving locally owned stores and restaurants to large regional malls. Unemployment, lowered property values, and fewer investment opportunities all result when cities lose their vitality and livability.
Sprawl is serious, it's hurting us all, and it's getting worse -- fast. That's why last November, voters from California to Cape Cod -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- approved more than 150 ballot initiatives dealing with growth management, land use and urban revitalization. In New Jersey, voters -- even in the state's tax-adverse Republican counties -- overwhelmingly approved the use of a billion dollars in tax revenue to conserve open space and farmland. Solving the sprawl problem will require innovation, and government will need to play a role. But what is needed is not more government, but more government leadership. In fact, the state, local and federal government will need to do less of some things. Government must stop building highways that encourage sprawl and stop subsidizing wetlands destruction and home construction in floodplains where perennial losses are costing taxpayers billions of dollars. Government must stop giving grants and tax incentives that encourage developers to fragment wildlife habitat and countryside, and avoid locating federal facilities outside of existing developed areas. Governments must also play a positive role. For example, states can encourage or require comprehensive planning and can channel state funds to existing urban areas. The federal government can be constructive, too, by putting real funding into transportation choices, and then supporting taxpayer incentives for transit use.
The Federal government can also support conservation easements that allow landowners to donate development rights to their land to conservation organizations. In turn, those landowners may receive income- property- and estate-tax relief. The federal government can reform the policies that allow construction, and re-construction, in flood plains, listening to its own experts in the Federal Emergency Management Agency who warn against future disasters if this wrong-headed policy continues. And the federal government can halt the practice of rubber-stamping wetlands destruction when developers want to build in these precious areas. Comprehensive, speedy clean-up of the "brownfields" in urban areas could also help in our battle against sprawl.
Congress can act to usher the Clinton Administration's Liveable Communities and Land Legacy programs initiatives into law. Full funding for innovative programs such as the Better America Bonds would be a great first step.
The Better America Bonds would allow the federal government to partner with local communities to finance environmental protection and reduce sprawl. These bonds would allow local governments and non-profit organizations to buy land at today's prices and forgo interest payments for 15 years. This means that communities can act now to preserve the places they hold dear, whether it's a fishing spot along a stream or a wildlife haven in a forest.
The Better America Bonds program will provide $700 million in new tax credits, but it would be much more than that. It would be, over five years, nearly $10 million in bonding authority for communities to shape own their futures in a way that's environmentally positive.
We believe that the Better America Bonds could help local governments purchase land or work to repair environmental damage, creating healthier, safer, greener communities. Bondholders will receive an annual federal tax credit in lieu of interest payments. Local governments, or their non-profit partners, will pay off the principal at the end of the 15-year term of the bonds.
Our local communities are now using bonds for their infrastructure needs, so why not use them to pay for long-term benefits like preserving open space? Better America Bonds could complement our federal land acquisition programs by allowing us to finance local land and water conservation. The control stays in communities; the federal role is limited to assisting with financing for qualified projects. Local governments or non-profit groups will manage land and improvements. The Sierra Club urges this Committee to support this innovative program.
Providing special protections for our most precious wildlands, from national treasures like the Mojave National Park and Preserve to the "small and sacred places" in our very backyards, is an essential tool for easing the effects of sprawl. For over a hundred years, we have been setting aside special places so that they may be preserved for future generations. The Land and Water Conservation Fund ("LWCF"), which provides funds for state and federal land acquisition, has been a valuable tool in these efforts for almost forty years.
However, only a fraction of the annual $900 million promised to the LWCF from Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas revenues has ever made it into the Fund's yearly budget. Obtaining full and permanent funding for the LWCF is a top priority for the Sierra Club and we are pleased to see all the bills being considered by Congress share this goal. We welcome efforts to pass legislation that will ensure protection of our nation's special places and wildlife.
Senator Boxer's "Resources 2000 Act" (S. 446) most clearly embodies the principles we believe are essential for OCS-related conservation legislation. We strongly support the bill's full funding levels for both federal and stateside LWCF. This level of funding will allow us to purchase valuable wildlands from willing sellers, providing much needed added protection for our most precious National Wildlife Refuges, Parks, Forests and BLM-managed protected areas. Landmark efforts would include further protection of such spectacular places as the Mojave and Joshua Tree National Parks, the Maine Woods, and the Everglades National Park. Resources 2000 would provide $450 million in stateside funding as well, giving states and local governments the resources they need to fight the effects of sprawl, and set aside valuable wildlife habitat and open space.
The Sierra Club supports efforts to provide funding for wildlife conservation and protection, as well as programs for urban parks and recreation, historic preservation, coastal and marine resources restoration, and farm and rangeland conservation. Senator Boxer's bill would provide $1.3 billion in funding for these valuable programs.
Finally, we strongly support the Endangered and Threatened Species Recovery title of S. 446. Resources 2000 would provide $100 million annually in dedicated funds to assist private landowners in the development and implementation of endangered and threatened species recovery agreements. Unlike other proposed landowner incentives programs, S. 446 applies only to programs that contribute to the goal of recovery and would be restricted to purely voluntary activities not otherwise required under law.
We also applaud Sen. Feinstein's efforts to guarantee full and permanent funding for both the LWCF and the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program ("UPARR") and recognize that her continued support on this issue is essential. Sen. Feinstein's "Public Land and Recreation Reinvestment Act" (S. 532) represents a positive step toward full and permanent funding for the LWCF and UPARR.
We are pleased that many sponsors of the various OCS-related conservation bills appear committed to working together to devise effective conservation legislation. It is encouraging that all parties share the goal of crafting legislation that provides full and permanent funding for the LWCF and other valuable conservation programs. However, we maintain serious concerns about several provisions in one of these bills, S. 25 by Senators Landrieu and Murkowski.
Although S. 25 shares the goal of funding important natural resource protection and wildlife programs, it does so at the expense of our coastal environment. In its current form, S. 25 ties funding from a new state and local government matching grants program, created from offshore drilling revenue, directly to the proximity of offshore oil and gas development. This may provide a substantial incentive for coastal states and local governments to promote stepped-up production. In addition, through this new fund, the Murkowski/Landrieu bill lavishes a disproportionate share of the public's money on a half dozen states and shortchanges the rest of America. To the contrary, Resources 2000 distributes funds from the LWCF, as well as other new programs funded from offshore drilling revenues, equitably across the country.
We are also deeply concerned about the restrictions this bill places on LWCF funds. The bill would place a ban on land purchases in excess of $5 million without further Congressional approval. Acquisitions in the Mojave National Preserve have already been authorized and the seller there is ready and willing. A non-profit conservancy organization is willing to contribute substantial amounts to acquire these inholdings. All that is needed to permanently protect these valuable lands is the LWCF money. The proposed restriction would hamper our ability to protect this special place and tie the hands of federal land managers, restricting their ability to carry out activities already authorized by law.
In addition, S. 25 requires that two-thirds of yearly funding be spent east of the 100th meridian. We oppose this arbitrary geographic limitation, as it also interferes with land managers ability to effectively protect our most valuable wildlands, and will impede years of progress on several ongoing projects in the West. A third restriction on the use of federal LWCF funds would prevent acquisition outside the exterior boundaries of our current land management system, seriously impeding the creation of any new units in our federal lands protection system. For instance, a program for Everglades restoration that has been years in the making would be effectively discontinued, as a key element to the program is land acquisition outside Park boundaries for water storage capacity. Some local communities are light-years ahead of the federal government when it comes to building healthy, liveable communities, and that's the way it should be. Communities that used smart growth policies to guide their growth have seen great rewards. A study by the Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments showed that Michigan communities with smart growth policies saved $53 million in road costs, $33 million in sewer costs, cut housing costs by 6.4% and reduced the destruction of open land by 12%.
But communities can't stop sprawl on their own. The Federal government must stop subsidizing sprawl and start developing solutions to the environmental, health, and economic consequences of continued sprawl. The Sierra Club looks forward to working with this committee and the rest of Congress to develop and pass policies that will stop sprawl from hurting us all.
Healthy, livable suburban communities are not an impossibility. They are what Americans are demanding for their families, for their future.
Thank you.